The legalization of sexual preference.

[Ionian_Tradition]

In the United states, and abroad, there seems to be a recent push towards the promotion of equal rights to marriage for same sex couples as well as an exerted effort to abolish any previous held biases which might have, in the past, rendered homosexuality a cultural taboo. This issue is pegged as a civil rights issue which has gained a vast cult following which some liken to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. I've heard the arguments in support of marital equality. Contentions which claim that so long as homosexual relationships are not the cause of gratuitous suffering or harm, and are predicated upon a loving relationship shared between consenting adults, then such union should be honored in the eyes of the state. I've noticed however that the same arguments could be made in support of legalizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, yet these types of relationships are not championed by cultural and political activists. They remain, to this day, very much a taboo. But for consistency's sake, why should this be the case I wonder? How can we, with any measure of consistency, legislate marital, or civil, rights to a particular sexual orientation which conforms to our arbitrarily assigned standards of decency while denying the same to other sexual preferences, which also happen to meet these same exact standards of acceptability?

Where do we draw the line of distinction between an acceptable sexual practice and a less than acceptable practice? And what justification do we have for drawing it?

[Bust Nak]

I see your point, and am forced to agree with it. I therefore come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with not legally recognizing the marriage of homosexuals.

You are free to judge that. I can only disagree with your conclusion.

After all, they are perfectly free to choose their morals as they wish; the law is not preventing them from it. In fact, there is no enforceable law against having homosexual relations. So what exactly is the problem? What is all the complaining about? What gives?

The problem is that there ARE enforcebale law against homosexual relations around the world. And there are enforceable law against homosexual marriage where I live.

We have determined that morals are totally subjective, anyone can do anything they please, and the law matters not a whit. We both agree on that.

No. We don't agree on that. I said the legality and morality aren't the same thing. I said anyone can think anything as good/evil as they pleased. I have not said the law does not, and cannot control what one think is good/evil. That's not the same thing as saying the law doesn't matter. It matters a great deal to me, that's why I want it changed.

[Moses Yoder]

That's not the same thing as saying the law doesn't matter. It matters a great deal to me, that's why I want it changed.

Why would the law matter if you are free to do as you please?

I see you are making a fine distinction between believing something is okay to do, and actually doing it. That is like me saying I believe it is okay to kill and eat people but never actually doing it. What would be the point? Would I then be a good person or a bad person? If morality is subjective there is no such thing as a bad person.

[Bust Nak]

Why would the law matter if you are free to do as you please?

The law matter exactly because I am not free to do everything as I please. I am however free to judge right from wrong as I please.

I see you are making a fine distinction between believing something is okay to do, and actually doing it.

The distinction is very clear. Think what you like, no one but your own self have control over it. Doing however, is a matter of legality.

That is like me saying I believe it is okay to kill and eat people but never actually doing it. What would be the point?

It's not about proving a point. It's simply how things are. It's a fact that there are no laws requiring you to think of certain actions are good. It's a fact that no one (bar some sort brainwash) can rewire your brain to think of certain actions are good. It's a fact that certain actions are legal/illegal regardless of if you think it evil or good.

Would I then be a good person or a bad person?

That's for people (including yourself) to decide for themselves.

If morality is subjective there is no such thing as a bad person.

Correction: If morality is subjective there is no such thing as an objectively bad person. For example, I consider drink drivers as bad people.

[Moses Yoder]

No, only you can decide what is right for you. Someone else made the decision that throwing you into jail is right for him. More importantly, lots and lots of people agree with him.

And yes, I understand that you don't actually think that it's ok to drink and drive. Do my answers satisfy you that subjectivism doesn't require doing away with laws?

Why would the law matter if you are free to do as you please?

The law matter exactly because I am not free to do everything as I please. I am however free to judge right from wrong as I please.

I thought I was free to do as I pleased? Which is it? If I am not, then morality is not subjective.

[Bust Nak]

I thought I was free to do as I pleased?

No, you are not free to do everything as you pleased, you are however free to decide what is good and what is evil.

Which is it?

What do you mean which is it? I've consistently told you the same thing.

If I am not, then morality is not subjective.

You are implying that if morality is subjective, then you are free to do anything as you pleased. This is incorrect. The correct conclusion is if morality is subjective, then you are free to do this one thing as you pleased: decide what is good and what is evil.

[Moses Yoder]

I thought I was free to do as I pleased?

No, you are not free to do everything as you pleased, you are however free to decide what is good and what is evil.

Which is it?

What do you mean which is it? I've consistently told you the same thing.

If I am not, then morality is not subjective.

You are implying that if morality is subjective, then you are free to do anything as you pleased. This is incorrect. The correct conclusion is if morality is subjective, then you are free to do this one thing as you pleased: decide what is good and what is evil.

Okay then. So essentially you have no right to tell me that same sex marriage is not evil. It is my right to believe it is evil. What is the point of having a debate forum? It is a complete waste of time. Do you really think we are changing the law here? Plus, my opinion holds exactly the same amount of value as your opinion. If morality is subjective then one person's opinion cannot carry more weight than anyone elses.

[Goat]

Okay then. So essentially you have no right to tell me that same sex marriage is not evil. It is my right to believe it is evil. What is the point of having a debate forum? It is a complete waste of time. Do you really think we are changing the law here? Plus, my opinion holds exactly the same amount of value as your opinion. If morality is subjective then one person's opinion cannot carry more weight than anyone elses.

You can think anything you want is 'Evil'. The question is 'Can you impose your religious belief about it on others'. Often, the right someone has to their opinion ends at my nose.

Now, in my opinion, if you feel that having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is evil, then, you shouldn't have sex with someone of the same gender.
'
If someone thinks sex with Christians is evil, that does not mean they have the right to restrict people from having sex with Christians.

Same with gender.

What two consenting adults do in private to each other , as long as there are no repercussions to people outside their relationship, should be perfectly legal.

[Bust Nak]

Okay then. So essentially you have no right to tell me that same sex marriage is not evil.

Actually, I do have that right, from freedom of speech, but that has nothing to do with moral subjectivism.

It is my right to believe it is evil.

Yes, you have that right, but I'd rather you don't believe it is evil.

What is the point of having a debate forum? It is a complete waste of time. Do you really think we are changing the law here?

No, we aren't changing the law here. But I hope to change minds - do you understand that moral subjectivism doesn't require doing away with laws now?

Plus, my opinion holds exactly the same amount of value as your opinion. If morality is subjective then one person's opinion cannot carry more weight than anyone elses.

Correct, also my vote holds exactly the same amount of value as your vote. There are just marginally more people that agree with me than with you, and that's what causes laws to change.

[connermt]

In the United states, and abroad, there seems to be a recent push towards the promotion of equal rights to marriage for same sex couples as well as an exerted effort to abolish any previous held biases which might have, in the past, rendered homosexuality a cultural taboo. This issue is pegged as a civil rights issue which has gained a vast cult following which some liken to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. I've heard the arguments in support of marital equality. Contentions which claim that so long as homosexual relationships are not the cause of gratuitous suffering or harm, and are predicated upon a loving relationship shared between consenting adults, then such union should be honored in the eyes of the state. I've noticed however that the same arguments could be made in support of legalizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, yet these types of relationships are not championed by cultural and political activists. They remain, to this day, very much a taboo. But for consistency's sake, why should this be the case I wonder? How can we, with any measure of consistency, legislate marital, or civil, rights to a particular sexual orientation which conforms to our arbitrarily assigned standards of decency while denying the same to other sexual preferences, which also happen to meet these same exact standards of acceptability?

Where do we draw the line of distinction between an acceptable sexual practice and a less than acceptable practice? And what justification do we have for drawing it?

Socially speaking, what one or two or three or fifty people want to do with each other privately, I don't much care. If Bob wants to marry 50 other women (why oh why?) that are of legal age, I don't really care.
Legally, so long as their rights don't negatively impact me, again, I don't much care.
So where do we draw the line? Where ever "we" say it' needs to be drawn. And by "we" I mean the people involved. In other words, what one does with another, if it has no negative impact on me, I don't give a care.

[4gold]

In the United states, and abroad, there seems to be a recent push towards the promotion of equal rights to marriage for same sex couples as well as an exerted effort to abolish any previous held biases which might have, in the past, rendered homosexuality a cultural taboo. This issue is pegged as a civil rights issue which has gained a vast cult following which some liken to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. I've heard the arguments in support of marital equality. Contentions which claim that so long as homosexual relationships are not the cause of gratuitous suffering or harm, and are predicated upon a loving relationship shared between consenting adults, then such union should be honored in the eyes of the state. I've noticed however that the same arguments could be made in support of legalizing incestuous and polygamous marriages, yet these types of relationships are not championed by cultural and political activists. They remain, to this day, very much a taboo. But for consistency's sake, why should this be the case I wonder? How can we, with any measure of consistency, legislate marital, or civil, rights to a particular sexual orientation which conforms to our arbitrarily assigned standards of decency while denying the same to other sexual preferences, which also happen to meet these same exact standards of acceptability?

Where do we draw the line of distinction between an acceptable sexual practice and a less than acceptable practice? And what justification do we have for drawing it?

According to natural law theory, acceptable sexual practices are those that further the efficient and final causes, while an unacceptable sexual practice is one that frustrates the efficient and final causes.

Since the final cause of sex is procreation, those sexual practices which frustrate that end goal would be unacceptable.

A couple that engaged only in oral sex would be unacceptable, while a couple that engages in oral and vaginal sex could be acceptable. A couple that engaged only in anal sex would be unacceptable, while a couple that engages in anal and vaginal sex could be acceptable. A heterosexual couple that married for the sole reason of not having kids would be unacceptable, while a heterosexual couple that married, but could not have kids could be acceptable.

Whatever path it takes to get there, the ultimate (or final) goal of sex is procreation.

Why do I oppose gay marriage? It frustrates nature's final cause of procreation. (Realizing how controversial my response is, I can't wait to read the responses!)